Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[fuzzytomcat]

Glen:

Well, if you "bathe" the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field coming from the end of the load resistor and the gate input resistance is at a very high setting, you will start to induce an AC voltage on the MOSFET gate input which could create a feedback mechanism that will indeed affect the operation of the circuit.  If you were to rotate the resistor around and go back to bathing the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field then the induced AC voltage will now be 180 degrees out of phase as compared to the first case, and this could also affect the operation of the circuit.  So this has nothing to do with the winding of the coil.  It would just be good practice to try to have the magnetic field generated by the coil not get too close to the MOSFET because it can have a very sensitive input.

As far as the winding of the coil goes to make your load resistor, you may be aware that there are web sites with "coil calculators" on them that have formulas that will compute the inductance accurately enough as long as your coil dimensions fall within certain proportions.  Getting the 10 ohms total resistance is easy, but then getting your inductance to be a certain target value is tied up in the coil dimensions.  You didn't mention that and I don't think you have to worry about it anyways.   One thing for sure is the more closely spaced the windings are the higher your inductance.  I don't know if you measured the inductance of the first glass load resistor you made.

Keeping it simple, my thoughts are the first one you made looked fine, so just do the same thing again.  If you know for a fact that your inductance is higher than what Rosemary specified, then spacing the windings further apart will lower the inductance a small amount.

MileHigh

Hi MH,

Thanks for explaining the problems faced with using the load resister near the Mosfet this is something that all replicators, members and guests should be aware of because what your is saying is very true ..... seen it first hand.

I also have not been able to find a uH meter to measure the impedance of my prototype resistor .... I guess its off to the electronics store to see if there uH meters they sell work properly (with my resistor in my pocket for a test sample) testing resistors ..... LOL

Fuzzy   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi hoptoad.  May I say that you've chosen an unusual identity.  We live in the Western Cape and have a particularly rare species - the leopard toad.  It's been classified as a protected species and is - happily - one of the principle reasons that our Council authorities have not been able to build roads around some of our suburbs.  But they're usually hunted by and fall casualty to dogs.  They fight back with some noxious juices from their skin.  The dogs gag for a while but usually survive the poison.  The only other association is Toad of Toad Hall.  He's got to be one of my favourite literary characters.

Just thought I'd mention it - just to get really off topic.   

I can buy into the 'big bang' in the sense that I can't imagine something without a beginning.  But I'm sure it's established now that star systems and galaxies in fact seem to be initiated in those amazing plasmas/ nebulas that have become the 'star' attraction of our night skies.  I find them fascinating.  So.  If they are known to be initiated here - then what need for that first explosion?  Still.  That's just my own view of things.  I'm sure our physicists have plenty reasons to subscribe to both.  And I don't know enough to argue.

Regarding the 'chaos'.  I must first tell you that I know nothing of math so have no idea of Bell's equations.  However, I fully identify with his statement that 'the statistical predictions of quantum theories ... cannot be upheld by local hidden variables.'  Something like that.  Apparently - without some essential order and symmetry then all the mathematical predictions fall apart.  In as much as quantum theory is really effective, and on the assumption that Bell really proved these equations - then I'm prepared to buy into his requirements for order.  But on a more profound level - I also love working with symmetry.  Not that I can relate it to much other than some scribbled patterns that I use to advance my own eccentric understandings.  But I LOVE symmetry. 

That brings me to the first issue with all extant theories.  The need for symmetry also requires some explanation for the antiparticles and their consequent manifestation into antimatter.  There's a dearth of evidence for this.  And the lack of it is dismissed as 'possibly being annihillated in the early phases of the big bang?  I find that a cop out.  This means that the universe is arbitrary and 'randomly' created more matter than antimatter?  Hardly the 'consistency' required for quantum mechanics.  So why are our theorists not rather advancing a proposal that there's a universe where antimatter exists as the opposite of matter.    Somewhere?  Like a mirror image of our own universe?

But that's not my only objection to an electric universe.  Not only do we have an evident lack of positrons but electrons themselves repel.  As such they cannot create the 'field effect' that would enhance the symmetries that Bell seems to require.   Then too electron's are stable - into infinity.  They are only thought to decay in certain unstable elements such as uranium - but it's never been proven.  Only that radioactive decay seems to generate some really aggressive little numbers that may be the result of electron decay?  So.  Where in that electric universe do you manifest photons and protons let alone their antiparticles?   

And I cannot see how an electric universe can explain gravity - the more so as it's effectively a monopole?  To my way of thinking that would result in antigravity at best.  And the universe seems to need some form of gravity to explain the 'distribution' of matter - however unevenly.

In any event - that's my best shot.  But know that I'm struggling here.  
edit (spelling)

   

[poynt99]

An update on the observed "negative before the positive" output:

Note 1:
The "negative before the positive" output appears to be the result of an extreme duty cycle within the 555. Evidently, the timing circuitry is able to be coaxed into generating pulse widths on the order of 100ns, but the output section of the 555 is not sufficiently fast to fully turn ON (or OFF) for this short duration. As such, most of the output seen at pin 3 of the 555 is due to capacitive feedthrough from the timing section across (bypassing) the output section. The reason a LO is output before a HI, is because the output section of the 555 is inverting, therefore the wave form driving it has a very long ON time for short ON times at the output. Scoping the 555 output when in this funky mode of operation should confirm the negative before the positive. The simulation does show this. As a side note, in playing with a full simulated 555 set up as an astable, inserting a series resistance into the VCC line does affect the timing. For the circuit I used, it decreased the frequency and shortened the pulse width.

Note 2:
As a confirmation of my statement that while in this mode of operation, the MOSFET is not conducting, I replaced the MOSFET with its 3 equivalent inter-electrode parasitic capacitances as per the datasheet, and the resulting simulation wave forms on all three "MOSFET" pins were identical to when the MOSFET was actually present in the circuit.

Conclusion:
Not only is the 555 output largely the result of capacitive feedthrough, but the signals observed on the MOSFET Drain and Source are as well, while operating it in this extreme duty cycle mode of operation.

Those that may wish to try this on the real circuit for themselves, can replace the MOSFET with the following 3 capacitors:

Cgd=500p
Cds=300p
Cgs=1500p

(Values are approximate and were chosen based on a Vds of 20V. For a Vds of 12V the values could be 60% higher. Scope shots of the simulation are available.)

Unless some strong evidence emerges indicating that there is something further of interest here, this concludes my investigation of the observed "negative before the positive" output.

.99

PS. I hope to have an interesting video coming soon.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I am not the person that would be suitable for the kind of debate that you are looking for about forces and particles, etc.  Sorry, it's just not my thing.  I was "programmed" to say that there are four known forces in the Universe as far as we understand right now;  Strong, Weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

With respect to some basic stuff you said this:

Look at facts.  Gravity cannot explain how galaxies stay together.

I wonder if you could briefly elaborate on that.  I am up to that one at least.

.99:

Fantastic work!  I get a few Brownie Points because at one point I said that adding the dreaded power limiting resistor to the 555 would affect the timing.  It has to!


Some people reading this thread may sense the difference between people doing real circuit analysis and either self-admitted newbies or people pretending that they know what they are doing when they attempt to do circuit analysis.  It should not be too hard to notice the difference in most cases because there is a huge gulf between the two types.

No flames please, I am just framing the upcoming debate.  You never know, we may have stormy weather ahead!

Meanwhile, what's up with Aaron and generating some real data?  We saw some imperfect but easily correctable thermal profiling data and I couldn't even bring myself to watch more than a snippet of his "Let's light a CFL with a cigar-shaped resistor" clip.  The weeks have been slipping by.  I am truly tired of waiting at this point.

Hopefully the dry spell will be over soon, I am counting on the recipients of the PCB to do their thing!

MileHigh

[poynt99]

.99:

Fantastic work!  I get a few Brownie Points because at one point I said that adding the dreaded power limiting resistor to the 555 would affect the timing.  It has to!

MileHigh

Indeed you did MH. Sorry for not mentioning that. I added that bit with you in mind

.99